How a Simple Question Can Be Confused

Written:Written April 22 (May 5), 1917Published:Published May 6 (April 23), 1917 inPravdaNo. 39.

      Published according to the newspaper text.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 24,

      pages217-219.Translated:Isaacs BernardTranscription\Markup:B. BagginsandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      1999

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Commentingon the resolution of the Central Committee of April
      20 concerning the necessity of transferring power to the
      revolutionary proletariat “with the support of the majority
      of the people”, today’sDyenwrites:

“Verysimple, then what’s the hitch? Instead of passing
      resolutions, come and take the power.”

“Verysimple, then what’s the hitch? Instead of passing
      resolutions, come and take the power.”

Wehave here a typical example of the methods used by the
      bourgeois press. People pretend not to understand the simplest
      thing, and ensure themselves—on paper—an easy
      victory. Anybody who says “take the power” should not have to
      think long to realise that an attempt to do sowithout as
      yethaving the backing of the majority of the people would
      be adventurism or Blanquism (Pravdahas made a special point of warning against this in the
      clearest, most unmistakable and unequivocal terms).[See also:Blanquism]

Thereis a degree of freedom now in Russia that enables the will
      of the majority to be gauged by the make-up of the
      Soviets. Therefore, to make a serious, not a Blanquist, bid for
      power, the proletarian party mustfight for influencewithin the Soviets.

Allthis has been gone over and hammered out byPravdaagain and again, and only stupidity or malice can fail to grasp
      it. Let the reader judge for himself to which of these two
      unenviable categoriesRabochaya
      Gazetabelongs when it describes the “recommendation” (made
      to the Soviet) “to take power into its own hands” as
      “irresponsible provocation”, as “demagogy, devoid of all sense
      of political responsibility,light-heartedly urging democrats
      towards civil strife and war, and inciting the workers and
      soldiers not only against the government but against the Soviet
      itself” and so on.

Canone imagine a worse muddle than this, when the blame on the
      question of demagogy is laid at the wrong door?

Prime
      Minister Lvovis reported by the evening paperBirzheviye
      Vedomosti[2]for April 21 as having said literally the
      following:

“Uptill now the Provisional Government has invariably met with
      the support of the Soviet’s leading organ. During the last
      fortnight these relations have changed. The Provisional
      Government is suspect.Under the circumstances it is in no
      position to administer the state, as it is difficult to do
      anything in an atmosphere of distrust and discontent. Under
      such circumstances it would be best for the Provisional
      Government to resign. It is fully alive to its responsibility
      towards the country, in whose interests it is prepared to resign
      immediately if need be.”

“Uptill now the Provisional Government has invariably met with
      the support of the Soviet’s leading organ. During the last
      fortnight these relations have changed. The Provisional
      Government is suspect.Under the circumstances it is in no
      position to administer the state, as it is difficult to do
      anything in an atmosphere of distrust and discontent. Under
      such circumstances it would be best for the Provisional
      Government to resign. It is fully alive to its responsibility
      towards the country, in whose interests it is prepared to resign
      immediately if need be.”

Isthis not clear? Is it possible not to understand why,aftersuch a speech, our Central Committee proposed
      that a public opinion poll be held?

Whathave “civil war”, “provocation”, “demagogy” and similar
      frightening words to do with it, when the Prime Minister himself
      declares the government’s readiness “to resign” and recognises
      the Soviet as the “leading organ”?

Oneor the other: eitherRabochaya Gazetabelieves that
      in making such statements Lvov is misleading the people, in
      which case it should not urge confidence in and support of the
      government, butno confidence and no support;orRabochaya Gazetabelieves that Lvov is really “prepared
      to resign”, in which case, why all this outcry about civil
      war?

IfRabochaya Gazetaunderstands the situation
      correctly, understands that thecapitalistsare raising
      a hullabaloo about civil war in order to cover uptheirdesire to flout the ’will of the majority by means of force,
      then why this outcry on the part of the newspaper?

Lvovis entitled to ask the Soviet to approve and accept his
      policy. Our Party is entitled to ask the Soviet to approve and
      accept our, proletarian, policy. To speak of “provocation”and
      so on is to reveal an utter lack of understanding of what it is
      all about or to sink to base demagogy. We are entitled to fight
      for influence and for a majority in the Soviet and the Soviets,
      and we are going to fight for them. We repeat:

“Weshall favour the transfer of power to the
    proletarians and semi-proletarians only when the Soviets of
    Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies adopt our policy and are willing
    to take the power into their own
hands.”[1]

[Resolution of the C.C. of
      the R.S.D.L.P. of April 22, 1917]

[1][PLACEHOLDER.]—Ed.

[2][PLACEHOLDER.]